Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

Questions:
a) What rate of change in atmospheric CO₂ do you anticipate?
b) How do you infer that "species of foraminifera could not adapt to CO₂ changes that took millions of years"? Species go extinct in, broadly speaking, two ways: they evolve into different species or they leave no descendants. A high rate of extinction at the species level might mean no more than a rapid rate of evolution.
c) Why suppose that extinction rates that coincide with increase or decrease in CO2 levels are caused by CO₂ changes? Both extinction and CO₂ might be responding to some other factor.

a) Pick an average rate from the IPCC AR4.
b) I did not infer anything. I stated what the science says so (look it up or read my post). CO2 levels changed, there was an an ocean acidfication event, specied when extinct.
c) Because the science says so (look it up or read my post or the papers about the effects of ocean acidification).

What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades?
10th September 2012
16 days and counting!
(from my side of the world!)

 

[lomiller]

It's limited by the amount of greenhouse gases present.

A surface could get hotter than the radiating source with ridiculously thick blankets of greenhouse gases, I suppose, but there's really no point in going there.

You can't have a greenhouse gas if both bodies are the same temperature because they would radiate at the same part of the spectrum. This means you don't get the one way effect where energy enters freely but can't exit.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

a) Pick an average rate from the IPCC AR4.
b) Because the science says so (look it up or read my post).
c) Because the science says so (look it up or read my post or the papers about the effects of ocean acidification).

a) You, not IPCC. You may use their figures, but a cite to whatever number you select would be nice.
b) Cite?
c) Cite?

 

[lomiller]

Engrish, prease.

I'll take your childishness as you admitting you can't formulate a response. The alternative is that you really can't speak english and for some reason found something in my post unclear.

I did not say Ben implied "without limit". I observed that Ben did not include limits, which must exist.

Ether strawman or non sequitur, take you pick. Either you meant something by your "observation" or it was completely disconnected for the topic at hand. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Reality Check]

a) You, not IPCC. You may use their figures, but a cite to whatever number you select would be nice.
b) Cite?
c) Cite?

a) I can pick any number - Wow !

Ok: A doubling of CO2 every decade!
ETA: More serously use the A1 scenerio which roughly 400 ppm of CO2 tday to 650 ppm of C02 in 2100. Your calculations based on this will be interesting .
​

b) Read: What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades?
c) Read: What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades?

 

[Reality Check]

P.S.
Citations for predictions that were backed up by adjusted/herry picked data
21st September 2012
5 days and counting.

can you understand that you need a hotter sun to warm the Earth?
18th September 2012
8 days and counting.
The Sun has been measured to slightly decline in TSI over the last 32 years, thus it is not the cause of the warming over those years. It is not even a dominating contributor to the warming over the last 100 years.

 

[BenBurch]

Not to me. Does this effect operate without limit? I don't see any limits in what you wrote, but I have a hard time imagining that the Earth could get warmer than the source, the Sun itself, for example.

Yes. The effect operates without nearby limits.

Venus is the extreme end of it.

The more CO2 you add, the warmer it gets.

Now, there are things that limit the effect in Venus' case; Its atmosphere rejects most visible light, and it's surface is quite dark, but still its blanket of CO2 makes it hot enough to have lakes of lead (if otherwise chemically possible.)

ETA, the tiny bit of CO2 we have now is the difference between the temperatures we observe and a snowball planet. (Think Hoth from Star Wars...)

 

[jimbob]

Not to me. Does this effect operate without limit? I don't see any limits in what you wrote, but I have a hard time imagining that the Earth could get warmer than the source, the Sun itself, for example.

Any limit is well outside anything that is habitable for humans. Without a greenhouse effect Venus should be hotter than Earth, but not not hotter than Mercury.

The greenhouse effect is real, even if you are struggling to understand the basics.

 

[jimbob]

P.S.
Citations for predictions that were backed up by adjusted/herry picked data
21st September 2012
5 days and counting.

can you understand that you need a hotter sun to warm the Earth?
18th September 2012
8 days and counting.
The Sun has been measured to slightly decline in TSI over the last 32 years, thus it is not the cause of the warming over those years. It is not even a dominating contributor to the warming over the last 100 years.

Reality Check, I understand what your are saying, but I think I'd prefer a qualifying statement:

can you understand that [without a greenhouse effect you'd] need a hotter sun to warm the Earth?

 

[lomiller]

Any limit is well outside anything that is habitable for humans. Without a greenhouse effect Venus should be hotter than Earth, but not not hotter than Mercury.

Not at it's current albedo. After accounting for reflection Venus receives slightly less solar energy than the Earth does.

 

[Mikemcc]

An intereseting article in the Guardian concerning wind generation in the UK having a greater effect on CO2 emissions than the naysayers would wish and also having fewer intermittancy problems:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions

 

[aleCcowaN]

Explain what? Ben's model mentioned inputs and insulation, as though all entries in the account are positive. That implies that a candle across the room will heat an insulation-wrapped thermometer until the glass and mercury vaporize. I doubt it.

Apparently, all Alec Cowan knows is post-moodern gibberish and ad hominem. Note that there was no ad hominem in my response to Ben.

Yada, yada, Malcolm, but again, you failed to understand what Ben said, especially the "in all directions" part, so you simply made up your "without limit". Your dramatic would-be quips like "until the glass and mercury vaporize" don't make your blunders less obvious.

And thank you for clearly confirming your lack a math basis other than a high-school one. A person who had set a foot in college would have had something to say.

 

[aleCcowaN]

"Intervention"?

Without looking, I'll guess "class". Easy enough to look it up. See "Tree of Life".

Your ability to look to other side when your argument fail is constantly noted here. Your "Red Sea corals" thingy is equivalent of saying "I saw mammals living in Congo so I fail to see why Arctic mammals won't adapt". You know what terms are implied here, so avoid your usual loopholes.

 

[bit_pattern]

The more water vapor, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more solar energy is reflected away from the earth (the albedo goes up). The less energy reaching the earth, the lower the atmospheric temperature

That's - how shall I put it - a rather simple model. Clouds are very dynamic, there are different types of clouds, they have different effects in different regions, they trap heat at low latitude, they increase albedo at high altitude, there's a whole lot more going on with clouds than your simple model allows for. Luckily for us climate science doesn't ignore the complicated, it studies it intensely and tries to understand it. And, to date, the best estimates suggest that on whole clouds act as a mild positive feedback within the climate system

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

 

[a_unique_person]

That's - how shall I put it - a rather simple model. Clouds are very dynamic, there are different types of clouds, they have different effects in different region, there's a whole lot more going on with clouds than your simple model allows for. Luckily for us climate science doesn't ignore the complicated, it studies it intensely and tries to understand it. And, to date, the best estimates suggest that on whole clouds act as a mild positive feedback within the climate system

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Using the logic that clouds cool should mean that Venus is mild and temperate. It is the brightest planet in the sky because those clouds are reflecting so much light.

 

[Halsu]

I'm pretty sure WhatRoughBeast is not Malcolm's sockpuppet (though I can't swear they are not cut from the same piece of fabric)

Oh, that was a mistake - i really shouldn't post when tired. I thought it was Malcolm who posted that, based on the content...

...sorry Malcolm and RoughBeast for mixing you two up, my bad.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'll take your childishness as you admitting you can't formulate a response.

And I'll just take your reflexive incivility as an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Tata.
When there's content to engage (for example, from Halsu and Ben), I will engage. Sometimes we all lump people with whom we differ over an issue into one category. It's common.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yada, yada, Malcolm, but again, you failed to understand what Ben said, especially the "in all directions" part, so you simply made up your "without limit". Your dramatic would-be quips like "until the glass and mercury vaporize" don't make your blunders less obvious.

And thank you for clearly confirming your lack a math basis other than a high-school one. A person who had set a foot in college would have had something to say.

You have something to say? Let's see it. I've been waiting for someone to present a mathematical model of radiation sources and sinks. Apparently the people who really understand are happy to let the children play unsupervised.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I've been waiting for someone to present a mathematical model of radiation sources and sinks.

Do you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Do you understand the Boltzmann equation?

 

[jimbob]

Any limit is well outside anything that is habitable for humans. Without a greenhouse effect Venus should be hotter than Earth, but not not hotter than Mercury.

Not at it's current albedo. After accounting for reflection Venus receives slightly less solar energy than the Earth does.

Thanks for that correction - I hadn't thought about it, but of course Venus is famous for a fairly high albedo.

Again showing how far above the habitable temperature a runaway greenhouse effect would be.